I'm just calling out the irony, nothing more, nothing less... I am not arrogant enough to think I can "diagnose" anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

VP's point has nothing to do with narcissism. My experiences aren't only my own since I've met others that have had similiar experiences. There are entire books on the subject. You think narcissism in the workplace is only MY experience?

I think it takes quite a bit or self centeredness to take your limited experiences and think you can apply them to everyone, and then on top of that sell far reaching theories as fact.

Do I think narcissism in the workplace is only your experience? No. Nor do I think it's new, nor do I think it applies the way you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

The only reason this thread was brought up was just to bring some argument that the teacher is anti-women in some way.

It's getting so old that without the church we don't know how to behave.
Where I grew up, the church didn't play a role at all. You only went to church when you were 70+ and didn't know what else to do on your Sunday morning. We didn't need the church to learn how to respectfully engage with each other etc.
Some kids were alright, others not. There seemed to be a very strong correlation with how the parents were. And usually you got something like, "Yes, just like his father." etc. from people who knew the parents when they were young.
It wasn't seen abnormal that boys and girls "hate" each other until reaching a certaine age, either.

I don't know what else is going on here..I tried but it hurt my head too much

Etiquette and manners should be taught by parents at a very early age and it's something that's gender neutral, so I don't agree with this gender specific thing. I hold doors for men just because it's the polite thing to do. I only expect them to hold doors for me because I want to expect that men and women will do that out of common courtesy. I can pull out my own chair.

Religious belief has nothing to do with character. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Careful there, you're making an empirical claim which doesn't seem to have that much support, there is evidence of an inverse correlation between religiosity and good behaviour

Quote:

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favour of secularisation in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the First World. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly.

Well you are making the claim that people in professional careers only and exclusively talk about material things; maybe you work in some strange place where this is true but I am telling you that it's absolutely false to assume that this is some kind of standard.

Are you reading the poster's mind?

I don't think this teacher is anti-woman. I think he likely has good intentions in mind, but what he's doing is over the top and frankly as a woman, the way for me to get to be a true equal isn't for a man to stand up when I walk in the room or to hold out a chair for me.

I agree. The teacher probably isn't anti-woman, just misguided. To me "respect" means someone treating me like I'm as smart and capable as my male peers. Courtesy is awesome, but can't there be some middle ground between being a jerk and treating me like a fragile princess who can't pull out her own chair?

But is teaching gender-specific etiquette perpetuating what some consider sexist traditions?

I'm not reading minds I'm reading posts. BTW selling theories as facts is simply a negative term for having beliefs and opinions which everyone here is guilty of. Remember Global Warming?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Religious belief has nothing to do with character. That is a fact, not an opinion.

My point is that people aren't born with good character they develop it through parenting and role models. When an institution as important as the Church becomes replaced not everyone replaces it with newer and better philosophies or better role models. Also a lot of the institutions we take for granted wouldn't exist without Christianity or old philosophies so I believe many are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Church got my father off of cigarettes when they were very popular to smoke. The Church has helped people control their emotions and develop equanimity through personal tough times and make better decisions in their lives. There are people who suffered from bad behaviours and addictions and used religion to get out. The Bible doesn't have to be approached in a fundamentalist way. Certainly where science replaces the bible I'm with science but I'm thankful for what Christianity did bring. I'm also happy for my meditation practice which has helped my concentration and equanimity more than anything else for me. I find many of the tools useful and practical. When the afterlife is talked about I tend to roll my eyes but I understand the far reaching goals that religions create are just the incentives people have for faith in themselves to change their habits. I'm aware that there are Buddhist techniques being added to some schools that are non-dogmatic and that's fine. Secular solutions are the way forward to reach more people. Having an etiquette class wouldn't hurt either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

It's getting so old that without the church we don't know how to behave.
Where I grew up, the church didn't play a role at all. You only went to church when you were 70+ and didn't know what else to do on your Sunday morning. We didn't need the church to learn how to respectfully engage with each other etc.
Some kids were alright, others not. There seemed to be a very strong correlation with how the parents were. And usually you got something like, "Yes, just like his father." etc. from people who knew the parents when they were young.
It wasn't seen abnormal that boys and girls "hate" each other until reaching a certaine age, either.

Maybe you don't need the Church or I don't and some others don't but many can improve from it. Certainly a teacher teaching etiquette in class is filling a gap that was once dealt with intermediary institutions like Churches. I don't want people to think I'm proselytizing Christianity. It was a useful tool and now society is trying to find a way to go it alone with mixed results. I actually wouldn't mind a philosophy class in school to fill that gap even more. There are many similarities and borrowings between more secular and religious philosophies. This could replace what the Church provided and allow many points of view and exposure to many cultures in ways that would be non-dogmatic.

For those who appreciate a bit of scientific evidence that meditation can affect one's ethical life, consider the 2008 study by neuroscientists Antoine Lutz and Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin. They compared 16 novices with 16 expert meditators concerning compassion, and found that the "data indicate that the mental expertise to cultivate positive emotion alters the activation of circuitries previously linked to empathy." Which is a scientific way of saying that the practice of cultivating compassion makes a real difference in the depth of our empathetic connection to others.

I made a thread that was meant to discuss etiquette and male-female relationships, and now we're talking about religion? I don't get it. I mean, I did read the whole thread, but I still don't know how religion got into this topic.

My point is that people aren't born with good character they develop it through parenting and role models. When an institution as important as the Church becomes replaced not everyone replaces it with newer and better philosophies or better role models. Also a lot of the institutions we take for granted wouldn't exist without Christianity or old philosophies so I believe many are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Church got my father off of cigarettes when they were very popular to smoke. The Church has helped people control their emotions and develop equanimity through personal tough times and make better decisions in their lives. There are people who suffered from bad behaviours and addictions and used religion to get out. The Bible doesn't have to be approached in a fundamentalist way. Certainly where science replaces the bible I'm with science but I'm thankful for what Christianity did bring. I'm also happy for my meditation practice which has helped my concentration and equanimity more than anything else for me. I find many of the tools useful and practical. When the afterlife is talked about I tend to roll my eyes but I understand the far reaching goals that religions create are just the incentives people have for faith in themselves to change their habits. I'm aware that there are Buddhist techniques being added to some schools that are non-dogmatic and that's fine. Secular solutions are the way forward to reach more people. Having an etiquette class wouldn't hurt either.

Your premise is faulty from the beginning by assuming that the church is an important institution in determining morals.

The Church got my father off of cigarettes when they were very popular to smoke. The Church has helped people control their emotions and develop equanimity through personal tough times and make better decisions in their lives. There are people who suffered from bad behaviours and addictions and used religion to get out.

Even if it were true that the Church and religion are somehow correlated to individual morality, that is not what we're discussing in this thread. What this teacher is apparently showcasing is a form of politeness, which is amoral. The Church may have played all sorts of roles in my life as a child, but it sure had nothing to do with me learning to say please and thank you, speak respectfully to my elders, get up on the subway when a visibly pregnant woman is standing, or help an older person who is struggling with walking or standing up, etc. These are things that were in the ambit of parenting and I don't believe have a rational connection to any sort of Church life. In other words, if I wasn't polite before I showed up to Mass, I sure wasn't going to learn it while the priest delivered the homily.

Even if it were true that the Church and religion are somehow correlated to individual morality, that is not what we're discussing in this thread. What this teacher is apparently showcasing is a form of politeness, which is amoral. The Church may have played all sorts of roles in my life as a child, but it sure had nothing to do with me learning to say please and thank you, speak respectfully to my elders, get up on the subway when a visibly pregnant woman is standing, or help an older person who is struggling with walking or standing up, etc. These are things that were in the ambit of parenting and I don't believe have a rational connection to any sort of Church life. In other words, if I wasn't polite before I showed up to Mass, I sure wasn't going to learn it while the priest delivered the homily.

True. The church, or any religious organization, can and does help many people, just as purpleoscar pointed out. Addiction counseling, etc, though all of those services can be obtained in the secular world as well. Religion can do alot for those willing to accept the premise of their religion and build a spiritual foundation on it.

The church, however is not inherently good. I am from Boston where the sex abuse scandal was the most widespread and got the most attention. Rest assured, the church destroyed many lives forever, drove many to depression, despair, even suicide. Religion has motivated some pretty dangerous things in the past- one need only look at 9/11. Religion is all about how you use it and whether you are capable of keeping your independent, reasoning mind in tact so that it may over rule something justifying suicide bombings or protecting pedophile priests. Religions are made up of fallible, flawed human beings.

So you are right, manners and etiquette are taught early on and in every day life, not once per week at church. I have seen many parents bring their kids to church and they yell and scream and play with toys(what the hell are the parents doing bringing toys to church??) the entire time. I know plenty of people who are just overall jerks and even criminals and they go to church every week. They would walk out of church without holding the door and then go and cut off the next 10 people on the road. On the other hand, I know plenty of perfectly polite, classy people who never go to church.

The parents teach it, as my parents taught me: "Please," "thank you," hold the door, as you get older, respect everyone but especially, respect and look out for girls, etc. This should be reinforced in schools. I would be much more interested in beefing up math, science, technology and economics lessons before adding an etiquette class. I think we all agree here that parents should be teaching these lessons and that the classroom should be conducted in a manner that introduces these concepts to those lacking in them(Kindergarten-2nd grade maybe) and then reinforces them throughout.

Is this guy going too far? There is nothing wrong or offensive about it, he is not anti woman, but yes, he is going further than is needed when we are getting our asses kicked in basic knowledge by other countries. If he notices lack of politeness or etiquette, he can bring it up and tell everyone how it would really be a nicer environment and help down the road with life skills(job interviews, work skills, etc) if you were polite and respected the feelings of others.

It goes the other way too- people can take "etiquette" way too far and waste time creating a whole cottage industry devoted to it. I remember in a college sociology class, we spent 3 class periods discussing the women's lacrosse team that all showed up in flip flops to visit the White House. The Professor was saying they are always bad and show a lack of respect, no one wants to look at dirty feet, people have no respect these days, etc.

1.)He was saying this at a college summer class, it is almost a requirement that you wear flip flops. I had mine on all summer and held plenty of doors and said thank you as I recall.
2.)If you are looking at the bottoms of someone's feet, then you have a serious problem.
3.)No one ever in the 3 day discussion suggested that anyone should wear flip flops to meet the President. I certainly never would. (I could only find it appropriate if the President were Mitt Romney, but that would never happen!)

No need to reinvent the wheel, just reinforce basic human decency. That is always a timely lesson, whether 1955 or 2010. I don't think it is a "kids today" thing all the time. When I see the "thug look" alot more prevalent now than before, I tend to think so. But then again, an older French-Canadian Catholic teacher I had in high school in 2003 would always remark how many less fights and how much more holding the doors and saying thank you there was then in the 1980s.